Monoj Kr. Thakur v. Union of India

relief and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied on the order dated 18th January, 2023 passed in WPO1303 of 2007 in the case of Shri Durgesh vs. Chief Security Commissioner, RPF & ors. in support of her submission. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submitted that the petitioner filed CAN 9317of 2008 challenging the order of dismissal dated

27.10.2008 and this Court allowed the said application but did not pass any order regarding joining of the petitioner in the service of the respondent. In view of the same, petitioner is out of service and prayed for reinstatement. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents and perused the materials on record. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed as cook-mate in the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. He produced community certificate issued by the Executive 6 Magistrate to the effect that he belongs to Hajang Community which is Scheduled Tribe Community. According to the respondents, the said certificate is fake one and , therefore, the respondent authority decided to verify the genuineness of community certificate and a team of the inspectors were appointed for the that purpose. On enquiry and verification of their team with Sub-Divisional Officer, Alipore and Barrackpore, it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not issued by the said office. Enquiries and verifications done by team of inspectors with regard to status of community certificate with the Sub-Divisional Officer is invalid and void. It is the case of the petitioner that community certificate was issued by Executive Magistrate, Alipore. The respondents have not stated that community certificate produced by the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee and respondents also not produced any material to show that community certificate produced by the petitioner was not issued by the office of the Executive Magistrate, Alipore. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there is no post of Executive Magistrate is without merits and is not acceptable in view of the interim order dated 10th July, 2006 granted by this Court wherein the Hon’ble Judge has categorically stated instead of District Magistrate by typographical error it has been mentioned as Executive Magistrate. The same is not 7 disputed by the respondents. In as much as all the respondents have not made enquiry and not verified the community certificate by referring the same to the Scrutiny Committee to show that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is fake one, the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for in the writ petition. Further, it is repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts that genuineness of SC/ST community certificate produced by an employee can be verified only by Scrutiny Committee consisting of specialized persons who will make enquiry as contemplated. Starting from Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. S. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors. reported in (1994)6 SCC 241 , number of cases regarding genuineness of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificates were considered and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts. All the Courts have consistently held that only Caste Scrutiny Committee appointed by concerned State government have jurisdiction and power to verify the genuineness of community certificate produced by an employee. Only persons having through knowledge the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities are appointed as member of committee. The committee also has an Anthropologist as one of its members. Elaborate procedure is contemplated to verify the genuineness of community 8 certificate. A vigilance enquiry is ordered and enquiry is made in the locality where the employee resides and /or his native place. The relatives of the employee are enquired and statements are recorded. The employee is given opportunity to dispute the enquiry report and to produce documents especially community certificates of his parents, brothers, sisters and close relatives. Only following procedure contemplated, the Scrutiny Committee decides based on the materials placed before it whether Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate produced by the employee is genuine or a forged one and whether the employee belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community claimed by him. The employer/employee has right to challenge the decision by way of writ petition if aggrieved. It is useful to refer the Judgment reported in (2013)16 SCC 536 in the case of Shalini vs. New English High School Association held in paragraph 15 as follows: “15. It is requires specialized bodies such as Caste Scrutiny Committees, specialized lawyers, seasoned bureaucrats, etc. To decipher which category a relatively backward, or ostracized or tribal person falls in. Can it therefore seriously be contended that a person who has honestly, in contradistinction falsely, claimed consanguinity with a certain group which was later 9 on found not to belong to an envisaged Scheduled Tribe but to a special backward class be visited with termination of her employment? We think that that is not the intent of the law, and certainly was not that the three-Judge Bench was confronted with in Dattatray. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant should have been debarred from any further advantage that would ensure to persons belonging to the “Halba” tribe.” In the present case when the certificate produced by the petitioner was alleged to be forged, the respondents ought to have referred the issue to the caste scrutiny committee. Instead, the respondents proceeded to conduct its own enquiry and passed order dismissing the petitioner from service . In view of the Judgment referred to above and failure on the part of the respondents referring the community certificate produced by the petitioner to scrutiny committee to verify the genuineness of the same, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, the show cause notice, charge-sheet and order of dismissal are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner from service immediately. The petitioner will be deemed to be in service from date of dismissal till date of reinstatement. Petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the said period as he was not doing any work. He is entitled to continuity of service. The period from 10 the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement will be treated as duty period for calculating terminal benefits including pension. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent photostate certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (V.M. Velumani, J.)